Malbec said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Iran spent $30 Million on their missile attack.

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

replacement cost of the $1Billion in weapons will be $2Billion in 2024 dollars. #winning

---

This is why anyone sabre rattling and wanting war right now is my enemy.

Iran said they are done. Israel is once again on top in the body count score.

Lets end it now!

---

Ending a war is easy. They make white flags that work wonders for that. Anti-Israeli activists and protestors want collateral Palestinian deaths to stop? Carry some banners around that say, "Save Palestinian Lives - Hamas Lay Down Your Arms and Surrender."

---

Not participating in a war half the world away in which you weren't even attacked is even easier!

They are all bullies and scumbags. Israel, Hamas, Iran.

We shouldnt be involved or attacking/supporting any of them.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

At a minimum.

---

Let Israel fight its own wars.

As w/ with Ukraine, any Christian/gentile Zionists who want to sacrifice themselves for Israel are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and join the fight on their own dime.

Same goes for these jihadi Islamist sympathizing leftists.

---

Problem with that is that if Israel gets to the point where they are on the verge of losing a conventional war with Iran and their partners, then Israel will level them with nukes. You sure you want to go down that road?

---

My guess is the reverse of that scenario is the more likely concern.

---

Do you mean Iran nuking Israel? Yes, that is certainly a possibility. But why is that more of a concern for you?

I don't think Israel wants open war with Iran, but they aren't going to back down, either.

So in my opinion, if Iran were to attack Israel with nukes, it would not be because Iran was on the brink of losing a conventional war. I don't see a scenario where Israel would be rolling tanks in to Tehran. lol. Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. If Iran were to nuke Israel, it would be because they finally have nukes.

---

My point was that Israel was not going to be "about to lose a conventional war with Iran." Israel's military is vastly superior. Moderate Arab states are not going to interfere, they would lover to see Iran marginalized. In any full-scale Iran-Israel conflict, Israel would have our full backing. Israel would never need to resort to nukes. Iran would almost certainly have to if it had them.

---

Pakistan has nukes.

If the US is going to play sides, why wouldnt Pakistan?

Israel's airforce is vastly superior to Iran. Other than that, they are about equal.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

At a minimum.

---

Let Israel fight its own wars.

As w/ with Ukraine, any Christian/gentile Zionists who want to sacrifice themselves for Israel are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and join the fight on their own dime.

Same goes for these jihadi Islamist sympathizing leftists.

---

Problem with that is that if Israel gets to the point where they are on the verge of losing a conventional war with Iran and their partners, then Israel will level them with nukes. You sure you want to go down that road?

---

My guess is the reverse of that scenario is the more likely concern.

---

Do you mean Iran nuking Israel? Yes, that is certainly a possibility. But why is that more of a concern for you?

I don't think Israel wants open war with Iran, but they aren't going to back down, either.

So in my opinion, if Iran were to attack Israel with nukes, it would not be because Iran was on the brink of losing a conventional war. I don't see a scenario where Israel would be rolling tanks in to Tehran. lol. Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. If Iran were to nuke Israel, it would be because they finally have nukes.

---

My point was that Israel was not going to be "about to lose a conventional war with Iran." Israel's military is vastly superior. Moderate Arab states are not going to interfere, they would lover to see Iran marginalized. In any full-scale Iran-Israel conflict, Israel would have our full backing. Israel would never need to resort to nukes. Iran would almost certainly have to if it had them.

---

Ahh, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I agree with that. As long as it's just Israel vs Iran with no other multiple significant threats, Israel has the clear upper hand.

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

I dont think anyone approves of Iran launching missiles at Israel, just as most sane people dont approve of Israel blowing up embassies or consulates.

If you are mad at the massive waste of American tax dollars, I agree with you. I just paid 6 figures in taxes in 2023 for the first time and I am LIVID that congress is talking about sending more money to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan when the border is still wide open and crime, homelessness, and inflation are hitting new records!

I have lived in DFW most of my life, and for the first time I am seeing beggers and homeless in Grapevine, Texas!

The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

At a minimum.

---

Let Israel fight its own wars.

As w/ with Ukraine, any Christian/gentile Zionists who want to sacrifice themselves for Israel are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and join the fight on their own dime.

Same goes for these jihadi Islamist sympathizing leftists.

---

Problem with that is that if Israel gets to the point where they are on the verge of losing a conventional war with Iran and their partners, then Israel will level them with nukes. You sure you want to go down that road?

---

My guess is the reverse of that scenario is the more likely concern.

---

Do you mean Iran nuking Israel? Yes, that is certainly a possibility. But why is that more of a concern for you?

I don't think Israel wants open war with Iran, but they aren't going to back down, either.

So in my opinion, if Iran were to attack Israel with nukes, it would not be because Iran was on the brink of losing a conventional war. I don't see a scenario where Israel would be rolling tanks in to Tehran. lol. Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. If Iran were to nuke Israel, it would be because they finally have nukes.

---

My point was that Israel was not going to be "about to lose a conventional war with Iran." Israel's military is vastly superior. Moderate Arab states are not going to interfere, they would lover to see Iran marginalized. In any full-scale Iran-Israel conflict, Israel would have our full backing. Israel would never need to resort to nukes. Iran would almost certainly have to if it had them.

---

Pakistan has nukes.

If the US is going to play sides, why wouldnt Pakistan?

Israel's airforce is vastly superior to Iran. Other than that, they are about equal.

---

Pakistan wants a ceasefire and is spewing the genocide nonsense, but wasn't aware that they are threatening getting involved militarily. Of course they are an Islamic Republic, so never say never. but my feel is they are more measured and want to prioritize economic prosperity. Unlike Iran. But yeah, Pakistan is also one to keep an eye on.

Putin has said Russia will back Iran. And China would back Russia in backing Iran.

To your earlier point, anyone for escalation of this is playing with fire.

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

So Israel kills an Iranian general that planned and executed the 10/7 attack (great news), then Iran gets successfully threatened and cowed into responding only with an impotent, highly telegraphed, "attack" that mostly didn't even reach Israeli soil, in part because of a Western/Arab coalition assembled by the US to shoot it down...

And y'all call that embarrassing? For Iran it is, but not the US. Israel just took a fat dump on Iran and all Iran could manage to do for domestic public consumption was the same old "hold me back" routine, accomplishing exactly zero Iranian goals. Jordan, with a substantial Palestinian population, and Saudi Arabia even pitched in the thwart it. If this is where it stops for now, this isolated event was a 100% win for US (and Israeli) foreign policy and backchannel diplomacy.

---

So, that response allegedly cost close to a billion dollars just FYI.

How about let's not give our enemies tacit approval to attack our allies in the ME. I think that was the more appropriate choice, if this report is true.

---

Since when was Iran an enemy of Obama / Biden?

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

At a minimum.

---

Let Israel fight its own wars.

As w/ with Ukraine, any Christian/gentile Zionists who want to sacrifice themselves for Israel are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and join the fight on their own dime.

Same goes for these jihadi Islamist sympathizing leftists.

---

Problem with that is that if Israel gets to the point where they are on the verge of losing a conventional war with Iran and their partners, then Israel will level them with nukes. You sure you want to go down that road?

---

My guess is the reverse of that scenario is the more likely concern.

---

Do you mean Iran nuking Israel? Yes, that is certainly a possibility. But why is that more of a concern for you?

I don't think Israel wants open war with Iran, but they aren't going to back down, either.

So in my opinion, if Iran were to attack Israel with nukes, it would not be because Iran was on the brink of losing a conventional war. I don't see a scenario where Israel would be rolling tanks in to Tehran. lol. Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. If Iran were to nuke Israel, it would be because they finally have nukes.

---

My point was that Israel was not going to be "about to lose a conventional war with Iran." Israel's military is vastly superior. Moderate Arab states are not going to interfere, they would lover to see Iran marginalized. In any full-scale Iran-Israel conflict, Israel would have our full backing. Israel would never need to resort to nukes. Iran would almost certainly have to if it had them.

---

Pakistan has nukes.

If the US is going to play sides, why wouldnt Pakistan?

Israel's airforce is vastly superior to Iran. Other than that, they are about equal.

---

Pakistan wants a ceasefire and is spewing the genocide nonsense, but wasn't aware that they are threatening getting involved militarily. Of course they are an Islamic Republic, so never say never. but my feel is they are more measured and want to prioritize economic prosperity. Unlike Iran.

Putin has said Russia will back Iran.

---

Russia and the US should be natural allies against Islamic fascism but a bunch of stupid ****s on this board supported financing the war in Ukraine rather than just surrendering the backwater eastern provinces and Crimea so that Russia could have its warm water port.

Now we have alienated Russia, wasted a trillion dollars, and Russia still got what it wanted.

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BearN said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I

US tax payers spent $1 Billion.

---

At a minimum.

---

Let Israel fight its own wars.

As w/ with Ukraine, any Christian/gentile Zionists who want to sacrifice themselves for Israel are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and join the fight on their own dime.

Same goes for these jihadi Islamist sympathizing leftists.

---

Problem with that is that if Israel gets to the point where they are on the verge of losing a conventional war with Iran and their partners, then Israel will level them with nukes. You sure you want to go down that road?

---

My guess is the reverse of that scenario is the more likely concern.

---

Do you mean Iran nuking Israel? Yes, that is certainly a possibility. But why is that more of a concern for you?

I don't think Israel wants open war with Iran, but they aren't going to back down, either.

So in my opinion, if Iran were to attack Israel with nukes, it would not be because Iran was on the brink of losing a conventional war. I don't see a scenario where Israel would be rolling tanks in to Tehran. lol. Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. If Iran were to nuke Israel, it would be because they finally have nukes.

---

My point was that Israel was not going to be "about to lose a conventional war with Iran." Israel's military is vastly superior. Moderate Arab states are not going to interfere, they would lover to see Iran marginalized. In any full-scale Iran-Israel conflict, Israel would have our full backing. Israel would never need to resort to nukes. Iran would almost certainly have to if it had them.

---

Pakistan has nukes.

If the US is going to play sides, why wouldnt Pakistan?

Israel's airforce is vastly superior to Iran. Other than that, they are about equal.

---

Pakistan wants a ceasefire and is spewing the genocide nonsense, but wasn't aware that they are threatening getting involved militarily. Of course they are an Islamic Republic, so never say never. but my feel is they are more measured and want to prioritize economic prosperity. Unlike Iran.

Putin has said Russia will back Iran.

---

Russia and the US should be natural allies against Islamic fascism but a bunch of stupid ****s on this board supported financing the war in Ukraine rather than just surrendering the backwater eastern provinces and Crimea so that Russia could have its warm water port.

Now we have alienated Russia, wasted a trillion dollars, and Russia still got what it wanted.

---

exactly. well, and I'll go you one further. The Biden administration went out of their way to give Russia every good reason to invade Ukraine with all the talk about wanting Ukraine to join NATO, which to Russia means we want to park ballistic missiles in their backyard. That was insanity.

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

I cant believe I am saying this, but I too have to give Biden (or whoever is really in change of his admin) credit for telling Israel if they choose to attack the US will not participate.

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

I cant believe I am saying this, but I too have to give Biden (or whoever is really in change of his admin) credit for telling Israel if they choose to attack the US will not participate.

---

No doubt we will share pertinent intelligence with the IDF as needed .

Sooner or later Iran is going to get fed up with US interference in their regional adventures.

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

I cant believe I am saying this, but I too have to give Biden (or whoever is really in change of his admin) credit for telling Israel if they choose to attack the US will not participate.

---

No doubt we will share pertinent intelligence with the IDF as needed .

Sooner or later Iran is going to get fed up with US interference in their regional adventures.

---

Hell I am fed up with US interference and US globalist adventures.

Our country is broke, half of the people with American passports who can vote in our elections are communists who want to crush "colonizers" which is code for WASP, legacy Americans, and we don't even have borders anymore.

I dont know why more people arent rioting in the streets? Our quality of life has gone down the toilet and our politicians openly do more to help foreigners in foreign countries than actual US tax payers. And when you write to your local congressperson they ignore your pleas.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

I dont think anyone approves of Iran launching missiles at Israel, just as most sane people dont approve of Israel blowing up embassies or consulates.

If you are mad at the massive waste of American tax dollars, I agree with you. I just paid 6 figures in taxes in 2023 for the first time and I am LIVID that congress is talking about sending more money to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan when the border is still wide open and crime, homelessness, and inflation are hitting new records!

I have lived in DFW most of my life, and for the first time I am seeing beggers and homeless in Grapevine, Texas!

---

The point of my thread was that apparently the Biden admin did exactly that, letting the Iranians know that they could respond proportionately, if the reports are true. That is inexcusable.

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

Mothra said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

---

We should revert to an isolationist foreign policy until we get our house in order, which could take a generation or two. When America has more self-avowed communists than China and Russia, that's a major *red* flag

Mothra said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

---

I think the choice was to spend $1 Billion in US taxpayer money to give Iran a way to save face with the hope that it would sway Israel from strong retaliation that would cost another $1 Trillion hit to the US stock market. That's why I say money well spent. Not because I think we should be lighting billion dollar bills in a tit for tat.. Of course, there is no guarantee Israel is not going to upon up a can on Iran because of this, but let's pray that cooler heads prevail.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that this whole thing has been one long dark comedy of errors that could have easily been avoided. And one *arguably* right move by Biden & Co does not erase their dozens of epic blunders.

I'm also not losing sight of the possibility that this administration as well as neocons on the right get a commission for every missile we fire and every warplane that flies a mission, and the $1 Billion (plus inflation) spent on this little exercise will get pumped right back in to the US Military Industrial Complex, so load up on LMT, RTX, and BA..

It's Trickle Down Economics: Neocon Style.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

---

We should revert to an isolationist foreign policy until we get our house in order, which could take a generation or two. When America has more self-avowed communists than China and Russia, that's a major *red* flag

---

We should, but it seems a large number of our politicians have been bribed and/or blackmailed to keep these wars going. It's been like this least since Eisenhower's farewell address, and probably much longer.

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

That depends on our communications with the Israeli's

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

---

We should revert to an isolationist foreign policy until we get our house in order, which could take a generation or two.

---

In principle I agree with you.

But until we find the political courage to cut spending and balance the federal budget it will be almost impossible to get our house in order.

Of course more of an isolationist policy would save billions of dollars annually.

Mothra said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

See the above link in response to Sam.

---

The questions I have for the second article are: (1) what were the limits or (2) or what?

If we explained to Iran what would cause a direct US response on Iranian soil and Iran respected that decision, I am okay with that.

---

Tacit approval to attack our allies is weak, and not a good look. We shouldn't be ok with that, or spending a billion dollars in response to same.

---

Tacit approval implies Biden wasn't trying to do this on the downlow. Just because it leaked out, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do it on the downlow. That is not "tacit" approval in my opinion.

There is not a whole lot for me to say positive about Biden, but if this was a deal he came up with, then he or whoever came up with it deserves high marks for coming up with a way past a **** no-win scenario. If the worst thing that comes of this is Iran saves face, and it cost us $1 Billion plus to avoid escalation, that is money WELL spent imo. Of course there are no guarantees either side will not escalate anyway.

---

Tacit means implied without being stated. Who knows, maybe they actually blurted out their approval, if it wasn't tacit.

Couldn't disagree more that was money well spent. Perhaps don't tell our enemies that it's ok to launch an attack on our allies, and this could have been avoided altogether. I for one don't like spending my taxes on such waste. No thanks. But this President has always been weak on foreign policy.

I believe it was Obama who once said Biden has never been right in his foreign policy recommendations. Ain't that the truth.

---

No way it could have been avoided altogether. Everyone had to expect a response to the embassy attack. It was just a question of what form it would take. Iran warned us before retaliating for Soleimani's killing too. You have to communicate in order to avoid misunderstanding and undue escalation.